portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

economic justice | gender & sexuality

WikiLeaks: Clinton Foundation Paid Women Less Than Men

Leaked email exposes Hillary's gender gap hypocrisy, pay disparity at family charity
The Clinton Foundation in 2011 employed more women than men but paid them less, on average, according to a salary schedule included in an email released Friday by WikiLeaks.

A foundation employee emailed the payroll schedule to board Chairman Bruce Lindsey and John Podesta, who currently chairs Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. It included then-Chief Operating Office and Chief of Staff Laura Graham's salary recommendations for 2012 for rank-and-file employees.

Overall, the average salary for women and men was close. But men out-earned women. Men earned $68,164 compared to $64,118 for women, on average. The median salary also was higher for men, $55,200 compared with $50,000.

The spreadsheet included 62 employees, 37 women and 25 men. It did not include people who received money from the foundation as contractors. The top-paid employee on the list was senior adviser Justin Cooper, who was pulling in $127,000. The lowest-paid employee was a female assistant making $18,000.

Clinton on the campaign trail regularly promises to close the gender pay gap.

"Last time I checked, there's no discount for being a woman," Clinton said in April.

Clinton's daughter, Chelsea Clinton, blasted Republican candidate Donald Trump in an interview with Glamour magazine over the summer for his failure to highlight equal pay on his website. And critics seized on a Boston Globe story indicating that Trump paid his male campaign workers more than female staffers.

But the Clinton Foundation's own gender inequities caused consternation in Clinton's campaign. WikiLeaks on Monday released an email from Democratic operative Ian Mandel on Feb. 24, 2015, referencing a story about pay inequity at the State Department and warning about salaries to top executives at the foundation based on the charity's publicly available tax filings.

"Guys Given the story yesterday about pay equity at the State Department, I wanted to flag something that came out of our research on pay equity at the Foundation," he wrote. "There are huge discrepancies, and it wouldn't surprise me if they went here next."

Indeed, Trump seized on that story when it did hit the news, writing on his Instagram account in May this year that "#CrookedHillaryClinton says a lot of things that sounds great for #VOTE but in reality, she does not mean it!"

Clinton also has come under fire for reports that female staffers earned less than their male counterparts during her time in the Senate, although the campaign has challenged the validity of that study's methodology.

The email released Friday by WikiLeaks shows that the pay disparity extended to rank-and-file employees at the foundation, not just the top executives.

It is difficult to determine if the foundation mistreated women, or if the pay gap is due to legitimate reasons. For instance, one high salary like Cooper's can pull up the male average significantly given the relatively small number of workers. Experience levels and tenure with the foundation also vary.

Even within the same department, different duties and levels of responsibility can explain why one employee earned more than another. For instance, Marc Dunkelman and Linda Jean-Louis both worked for the COO Department and both had been employed for the same amount of time. But Dunkelman, whose title was senior fellow, earned $41,400 more than Jean-Louis, who was finance manager of the Harlem office.

In short, there may be perfectly legitimate reasons why men made more than women at the foundation. But Hillary Clinton and her allies often ignore such nuances when they talk about businesses and trot out a misleading statistic showing that women make 77 cents for every dollar earned by men.

Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University economics professor who has studied the issue, told LifeZette that one-on-one discrimination does not drive the pay gap.

"They're not being paid less for the same work," she said.

Goldin said inequities likely exist. But she said men mostly earn more, on average, because they are willing or able to put in the time on the job necessary to rise to the upper echelons of companies.

"Men throughout history have been able to spend more time outside the home, outside the responsibilities of home not just with respect to children but also [ailing] parents than have women," she said. "Many of these decisions are consciously made by the two people in the home."

For what it's worth, five of the seven employees for whom Graham sought outsized raises were men. Overall, women received lower performance ratings than men, on average. And the recommended raise for men, as a percentage of their then-current income, was almost 1.8 times more than women.

homepage: homepage: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-clinton-foundation-paid-women-less-men/


If you had read what you posted 22.Oct.2016 13:55

Mike Novack

I am no great fan of Hillory, but your aded heading "Leaked email exposes Hillary's gender gap hypocrisy, pay disparity at family charity" is NOT supported by the rest of the article which pretty clearly says that the data presented is NOT sufficient to draw that conclusion (and it explains why not rather well)

if Mike had read what was posted (doesn't matter, he's a Disinfo troll) 22.Oct.2016 14:39

_

Mike Novack (disinformationalist professional) wrote:
---
is NOT supported by the rest of the article
---

The "rest of the article" merely consists of a mishmash of varied comments about how much money men out-earn women by at the Foundation.
Various external analysts, scholars of, and recycled generic quotes about, men vs. women salaries are quoted in the article, with reference to the Clinton Foundation (specific) data.


Here is the mishmash, stated in the article in a nutshell :


---
It is difficult to determine if the foundation mistreated women, or if the pay gap is due to legitimate reasons.
---

"Legitimate reasons" include the "one-on-one discrimination does not drive the pay gap" claim by Harvard University economics professor Claudia Goldin, who
SPECULATIVELY AND WITH NO REFERENCE TO THE Clinton Foundation IN PARTICULAR
cites "men earn more, on average, because they are willing or able to put in the time on the job necessary to rise to the upper echelons of companies"


except the Clinton Foundation, is not a 'company'.


it's also in contrast to repeated rhetoric from the Clinton campaign and Democrats about businesses with misleading statistics "women make 77 cents for every dollar earned by men" (which do of course have validity in other, far broader and less relevant context) et cetera.

Clinton is after all, running for president in 2016.
(This stuff probably wouldn't matter as much to anyone, if she wasn't running for the White House right now)



Facts remain, though that the men at the Clinton Foundation earn more than women. Indisputable.

Five of the seven employees for whom Clinton Foundation CEO and Chief of Staff Laura Graham sought outsized raises, were men.

Overall, women received lower performance ratings than men, on average.

And the recommended raise for men, as a percentage of their then-current income, was almost 1.8 times more than women.



Secretary Clinton has also previously been criticized for her female staffers earning less than their male counterparts during her time as Senator, although the Clinton campaign has challenged the validity of that study's methodology
[ JUST LIKE Mike Novack does, IMAGINE THAT .................................................. ]


Furthermore, WikiLeaks shows that it was one of the Democrats' own operatives Ian Mandel who pointed out [quote] :
"I wanted to flag something that came out of our research on pay equity at the Foundation ... There are huge discrepancies."

and as noted, Trump already had posted to his Instagram about these discrepancies (in Clinton Foundation pay of women, and the Clinton campaign's own rhetoric about pay-for-women) back in May 2016.


so none of this is really news. The most recent WikiLeaks releases merely nail the coffin further shut.

nice try Mike but no cigar as per usual.

RE: your aded [sic] heading "Leaked email exposes" 22.Oct.2016 15:13

_

Your problem Mike, is not only that you can't type but also can't read.


---
"aded [sic] heading"
---

The so-called 'heading'
[quote] "Leaked email exposes Hillary's gender gap hypocrisy, pay disparity at family charity"

is the verbatim lede EXACTLY as presented at the original Lifezette reposted article's URL available for your perusal right here ^^ above.


it is indeed not 'my' ("your") ""aded [sic]" content. Verbatim as per the original, only and exclusively.


Evidently you need to work on self control, let alone skilz, when you see triggering material here on the newswire. (That or your handlers need to exercise discipline / dock your pay for the week)


-----
A lead paragraph (also called a lead or lede) in journalism and sometimes other kinds of literature is the opening paragraph of an article, essay, news story or book chapter. Often called the lead, it usually occurs together with the headline or title.
-----

this shouldn't surprise anyone. 23.Oct.2016 06:48

.i.

Hillary is all about Hillary. Nobody else.